For each action we perform,

Answer choices

1. A

   Unrelated to Goal3% picked this

   On some occasions we can come to learn that it is morally wrong to perform

   This answer has nothing to do with closing the gap between "only know some consequences" and "don't know best consequences". Our author is saying that "we'll never know morally right", and this answer is saying "we'll sometimes know morally wrong". Does the latter prove the former? Definitely not. If anything, it weakens the former, since it establishes that it's sometimes possible to know something is morally not-right.

   3%
2. B

   Unrelated to Goal Weakens, if anything14% picked this

   On some occasions we can know what action is

   This answer has nothing to do with closing the gap between "only know some consequences" and "don't know best consequences". Our author is saying that "if X is true, then we'll never know morally right", and this answer is saying "we'll sometimes know morally right". Does the latter prove the former? Definitely not. If anything, it weakens the former, since it establishes that it's sometimes possible to know something is morally right.

   14%
3. C

   Correct75% picked this

   Knowing that an action has the best consequences requires knowing all the consequences

   Why this is right

   The verb "requires" is the same as the conditional arrow, so this looks like this: knowing action has ? knowing all consequences best consequences of that action Many, many, many correct answers on Sufficient Assumption are written in the contrapostive form of what we were looking for, so if it has the right type of language, we should consider contraposing it. Here, we would get: if we don't know all we don't know whether the consequences ? that action had the best of some action consequences Our author established that for each action, we will know only some consequences. So according to this rule, for each action, we will not know whether that action had the best consequences. Thus, we've proven the author's conclusion that we'll never know if an action had the best consequences.

   Skill tested: Sufficient Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   75%
4. D

   Weakens, if anything5% picked this

   Only the immediate consequences of our actions are relevant in determining whether they

   This is closer than (A) and (B), but because it's not dealing with "best consequences" (the new term in the Conclusion) it can't possibly allow us to derive that "we never know if an action had the best consequences". The fact that this answer is stressing that all we need for moral assessments are the immediate consequences makes it seem to almost go against the argument. The author never specified whether the "only some" consequences we know for each action are its immediate consequences or its long-term ones, but common sense would suggest that it's easier to see the immediate consequences than the long-term consequences of any action. Our author wants to show it's hopeless to determine whether something is morally right, because you won't ever know all the eventual consequences, so you won't be able to assess whether that action had "the best" consequences. This answer seems to go against that, saying we would only need to assess the immediate consequences.

   5%
5. E

   Unrelated to Goal3% picked this

   An action may be morally right for one particular person without being morally right

   This answer has nothing to do with closing the gap between "only know some consequences" and "don't know best consequences". Since "best consequences" was a new term in the conclusion, it must be in the correct answer (only one answer choice actually had that required New Term). This answer is conveying the notion that morally right actions differ from person to person, but that doesn't allow us to mathematically derive the author's conclusion, which is that "in no situation can we know whether an action had the best consequences".

   3%